679 Senator
Cash: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health
and Ageing—With reference to the answer given to question on notice
E11-050 asked during the 2010-11 additional estimates hearing of the
Community Affairs Legislation Committee in regard to reciprocal health
care agreements (RHCAs) for 410 visa holders, which states ‘b) The
Department considered the usual circumstances of all 410 visa holders,
prompted by a particular case, in making this decision’:

(1) Without
compromising the confidentiality of any individual in the particular
case, and with any necessary personal identifiers removed:

(a) what
were the full details and exact circumstances of the particular case
which subsequently led the department to make the decision to apply
a policy change to all 410 visa holders;

(b) how
can ‘the usual circumstances of all 410 visa holders’ best be described
or defined;

(c) are
there any circumstances of any subgroups within the total 410 visa cohort
which differ from ‘the usual circumstances of all 410 visa holders’;
if so, how can these best be described or defined; and

(d) are
there any other temporary visas whose visa holders have the same usual
circumstances of 410 visa holders; if so, which visas.

(2) In regard to the answer given
to part (e) of the same question which states: ‘e) Yes. Holders of
Temporary Business (Long Stay) - Standard Business Sponsorship (Subclass
457) are eligible for health care under the terms of the relevant RHCA’;

(a) if
the 457 visa allows a temporary stay for a period of up to 4 years (with
the possibility of renewal for periods of up to 4 years) and the 410
visa allowed an initial temporary stay in Australia of 4 years, with
(at the time of the change in policy in 1998) the possibility of renewal
for a further period of only 2 years, how does the 457 visa not imply
an intention to take up residence in Australia, when a retirement visa
strongly implies an intention to take up residence in Australia; and

(b) how
is it possible for a 457 visa holder to work in Australia for 4 years
or more without taking up residence here.

(3) How
and why does the department differentiate the eligibility for RHCA benefits
between two classes of temporary visa (457 and 410) both of which have
similar limited and finite periods of temporary residence, given that
the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has been very clear in
its description of the 410 retirement visa, insisting that its purpose
was to allow people of retirement age ‘to spend some of their retirement
years in Australia’.

(4) Which
other temporary visas, other than the 457 visa, allow eligibility for
RHCA Medicare benefits for visa holders who originate from countries
with RHCAs with Australia.

(5) Given
that, in a reply to British Expat Retirees in Australia (BERIA) the
department stated that a retirement visa strongly implies an intention
to take up residence in Australia, suggesting that the department classes
all 410 visa holders as intending to live ‘permanently’ in Australia,
despite the fact that a temporary visa does not allow permanent residency,
merely temporary residency for the length of the visa, and in fact,
many BERIA members spend only short periods of time in Australia, some
no longer than allowed by a tourist visa, why then do these 410 visa
holders not qualify for RHCA benefits.

(6) Given
that 410 visa holders applying for parent visas are now allowed to retain
their 410 visa rather than accepting a bridging visa, yet they immediately
qualify for RHCA benefits from the time their parent visa application
is made to the time they receive their parent visas (which could be
up to 15 years), why do these 410 visa holders suddenly become eligible
one day, when the previous day they were ineligible, even though their
visa status remains exactly the same.

(7) Can
details be provided as to who pays the costs of the RHCA and how and
when this is paid (i.e. is the agreement between Australia and the United
Kingdom (UK) the same as the European Health Insurance Card agreement
where each country bills the other for the reciprocal health care costs
incurred by their nationals in the other country, or is it a different
model).

(8) An
RHCA guarantees full health care benefits in one country and basic health
care benefits while ‘visiting’ the other country, however the 1998
decision referred to in the answer to question on notice E11-050 subpart
(a), denied reciprocal health care benefits to 410 visa holders in Australia
because they were deemed ‘resident’ here (the department classes
410 visa holders as resident in Australia) and as a result they are denied
the normal health care benefits in the UK for which UK residents are
eligible: Given that 410 visa holders are treated as ‘visitors’
if they return to the UK for a temporary stay, how can 410 visa holders
access government subsidised healthcare services when Australia deems
them to be ineligible for Medicare and the UK deems them ineligible
for the National Health Service.

(9) Does
the eligibility for reciprocal Medicare benefits for parent visa applicants,
whether on bridging visas or on 410 visas, apply to both the Parent
(Migrant) Visa (Subclass 103) and the Aged Parent (Residence) Visa (Subclass
804).

(10) Are
Temporary Business (Long Stay)-Standard Business Sponsorship (Subclass
457) visa holders deemed by the department to be still resident in their
countries of origin; if so, why; if not, why not.

(11) Are
parent visa applicants, whether on bridging visas or on 410 visas, deemed
by the department to be still resident in their countries of origin;
if so, why; if not, why not.